World News

You could add Egypt, Syria, etc.

You can't, though, because that means splitting up families and communities and scattering them across several countries and continents. Plus, even if they were split up, those countries would still struggle to provide them with jobs and housing, they'd still be reliant on humanitarian assistance and be relegated to an underclass of permanent refugees.

This is still very clearly distinct from Russia, where no one would need to be separated because they'd all be in the same country. It really isn't the same situation.

you keep ignoring the base issue here in favour of liberal “nonviolence” and pacifism which ends up actually feeding the nazis.

Please don't put words into my mouth, I am not a liberal passivist.

What I think is that fewer people, overall, would have died or been injured or lost family or endured economic hardship by being resettled. I think avoiding war is good, not because violence is inherently bad, but because it has lead to more suffering for people who don't deserve it. Russia could have absorbed everyone into its economy, they'd have had jobs and housing and all the necessities of modern life. I just think they'd have been better off by giving up the land to move farther East than staying to fight.

Make no mistake, I try to respect their decision to stay and fight for their land. I just can't understand it. Land just seems unimportant to me when there are other options (which is distinct from the Palestinians, for the reasons I explained). I am a postmodern subject that has been so thoroughly alienated from land that I can't even imagine caring about it.

But this doesn't come from some obsession with nonviolence or passivism. I still critically support Russia in their struggle against US/NATO imperialism, after all.

It's a moot point anyway, because it looks like the invasion is paying off. This is why I'm not in charge of anything.